I see Ian replaced the entire Canvas 2D API spec. without a formal
proposal:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/2dcontext/
Could you please clarify how this is consistent with the HTML working
groups decision policy or with the process you refer to below?
I also noticed Ian went into numerous related defects and added requests
for use cases, such as:
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13578
We have on numerous occasions provided information on things like
providing the bounds of an object such as Frank Olivier presented at TPAC.
Please refer to the use cases minuted at the TPAC discussion.
I am leaving for vacation in an hour and will be unavailable for mostly
through the end of the year. I look forward to your reply.
Best Regards,
Rich
From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
Cc: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak
<mjs@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org,
public-canvas-api@w3.org, franko@microsoft.com,
chuck@jumis.com, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>,
dbolter@mozilla.com
Date: 12/09/2011 06:20 AM
Subject: Re: Request to re-open issue 131
On 12/08/2011 11:24 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
> Paul, Maciej, Sam,
>
> This is a request on behalf of the HTML Accessibility Task force to
> reopen issue 131 on the basis of providing new information on regarding
> exposing a text baseline in the Canvas 2D API specification.
>
> The change proposal is provided here:
>
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/FocusRingTextBaseline
As the original decision stated[1]:
* Proposals to add baseline measurement support can be considered if
sufficient detail is provided.
... the chairs find that this proposal provides that information, and
therefore have decided to reopen this issue.
Furthermore, based on the discussions at TPAC, concrete progress towards
the development of another proposal[2], the fact that the original
alternate proposal[3] has evolved further based on implementor feedback,
and in the interest of time, the chairs have elected to reopen the
entire issue, and not simply reopen this one facet.
Operationally, this effectively means that the decision itself is
vacated, and participants have full use of W3C's CVS, wikis, and mailing
lists to use to develop their proposals. We further will state that we
do not intend to honor any revert requests in the specific areas covered
by issue 131.
Our plans are to work with the various parties to see if there is any
opportunity to split this into smaller, more focused issues. Once that
process is complete, and if we continue to find areas of disagreement,
we will call for proposals. The original proposals can be resubmitted
as is, or can be updated. These proposals can be based on prior or
current baselines. New proposals can also be submitted.
Should we have multiple proposals, the chairs will carefully review each
Change Proposal for completeness. We will expect full rationale for
every difference from other proposals. Based on the outcome of the
prior decision, we will also require testimonials from at least two
major implementors that that they would be willing to implement the
proposal should it be adopted.
> Thank you,
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
- Sam Ruby
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0271.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Canvas_hit_testing
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0521.html